Jump to content

Am I Immoral Now That Im No Longer A Christian?


gseeker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ive often had christians tell me that i am immoral now because God created morality, morality is objective, and since i dont follow or believe in their god im now an immoral being. So I wanted to look at morality again even though that is one of the things i studied before deconverting.

 

So is morality is objective or subjective?

 

Question, what is pedophilia and is pedophilia wrong? Either pedophilia doesnt exist or pedophilia isnt wrong if you believe the bible.

 

If it is wrong for a man to have sex with an 11 or 12 year old then why was it okay for the hebrew men in the old testament to marry and have sex with girls just entering puberty? If morality is objective and set by god then you cant say, oh that was just the culture or that was just a different time. Remember, objective morality doesnt change only subjective morality changes.

 

Did you know that 15 percent of girls enter puberty now at age 7? So is it now moraly correct to marry and have sex with girls that age since the standard for that is puberty?

 

Let me know your thoughts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I became more moral when I left Christianity, but the thing is, the Bible god clearly doesn't create an objective moral standard. He creates one that is subjective and can change at any time it suits him. There are probably quite a few Christians who know this, but still insist that their god's morality is objective anyway.

 

I would assume that your morality probably improved since you left Christianity, but I don't really know what moral standards you held as a believer and which ones you hold now, so I can't be sure if your morality has changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality in a way is objective, except its not something that's written in any book but rather our biological programming.  If we engage in behaviors that hurt others it would be bad for our species as a whole.  I know humans tend to do that anyways but except for odd cases we aren't born as homicidal maniacs.  Other behaviors that have no harmful effects on others can fall into the realm of subjective morality (all the arbitrary biblical laws.)  Having sex with someone that young will mentally traumatize that individual and therefore can constitutes causing harm to another.

If you are want to be a person that doesn't hurt others then the best course of action is to do the opposite of what the bible says in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive often had christians tell me that i am immoral now because God created morality, morality is objective, and since i dont follow or believe in their god im now an immoral being. So I wanted to look at morality again even though that is one of the things i studied before deconverting.

 

So is morality is objective or subjective?

 

Question, what is pedophilia and is pedophilia wrong? Either pedophilia doesnt exist or pedophilia isnt wrong if you believe the bible.

 

If it is wrong for a man to have sex with an 11 or 12 year old then why was it okay for the hebrew men in the old testament to marry and have sex with girls just entering puberty? If morality is objective and set by god then you cant say, oh that was just the culture or that was just a different time. Remember, objective morality doesnt change only subjective morality changes.

 

Did you know that 15 percent of girls enter puberty now at age 7? So is it now moraly correct to marry and have sex with girls that age since the standard for that is puberty?

 

Let me know your thoughts.

Morality is a human construct and is determined by the consensus of the particular group of humans involved.  As such, it is generally subjective.  To the extent a particular action/event is deemed immoral by (i) a majority within the group and (ii) for a longer period of time, that morality/immorality begins to approach objectivity.  But it never reaches it completely.  For example, murder of another human is an example of a moral closer to an objective moral than some other moral precepts.  Involuntary servitude of another human being (i.e., slavery) is an example of an action/event that is less objective than murder because (i) less people believe it is immoral and (ii) the amount of time the majority consensus has deemed it immoral is less.  At some point in the future, or in certain situations, murder may be moral (e.g., to feed the remaining humans because of isolated starvation).

 

Often, societies enact laws to proscribe and define immoral behavior.  Most humans societies declare than having sex with a 7 year old girl is immoral.  Perhaps this will change in the future.  Perhaps not.

 

The concept of permanent, always so, for ever and ever, moral rules is a human construct.  Some actions/events tend to fit that concept (e.g., murder without just excuse, theft).  Other actions/events do not (e.g., taking advantage of another for financial gain, having sex outside of marriage).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is subjective.  People like to point to things like, "Murder has always been wrong!"; but what constitutes murder?  A hundred and fifty years ago you could challenge someone to a dual at high noon for looking at you wrong.  You could blow someone away in the middle of the street in front of a crowd of people and it wasn't considered murder.  Hell, you can watch a movie, TV show or play a game about zombies and see the lines between murder/justice/survival be blurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems obvious that morality is subjective, not objective, and that morality is NOT a creation of the flying spagetti monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny, ive posted this three different places and have yet to have a single christian challenge my conclusion.

 

Good point on challenging people to a gun or knife fight but would that even be considered murder today since both people are armed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Did you know that 15 percent of girls enter puberty now at age 7? So is it now moraly correct to marry and have sex with girls that age since the standard for that is puberty?

 

Let me know your thoughts.

 

This horrifies me!

You think the only reason you cant have six with kids is because they may not have reached puberty!!!!

Well fuck you, there's something called CHOICE!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive often had christians tell me that i am immoral now because God created morality, morality is objective, and since i dont follow or believe in their god im now an immoral being. So I wanted to look at morality again even though that is one of the things i studied before deconverting.

 

So is morality is objective or subjective?

 

Question, what is pedophilia and is pedophilia wrong? Either pedophilia doesnt exist or pedophilia isnt wrong if you believe the bible.

 

If it is wrong for a man to have sex with an 11 or 12 year old then why was it okay for the hebrew men in the old testament to marry and have sex with girls just entering puberty? If morality is objective and set by god then you cant say, oh that was just the culture or that was just a different time. Remember, objective morality doesnt change only subjective morality changes.

 

Did you know that 15 percent of girls enter puberty now at age 7? So is it now moraly correct to marry and have sex with girls that age since the standard for that is puberty?

 

Let me know your thoughts.

 

Morality is about whether or not some behavior or action causes harm to another person. Christians will hypocritically ignore the parts of the bible that aren't convenient to the lifestyle that the average citizen lives and at the same time they will claim they are right with God. They're full of shit and they aren't worth wasting your time debating.

 

The bible is full of immoral behavior perpetrated by god. God apparently violates his own objective morality/laws. Why? What a lousy role model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Did you know that 15 percent of girls enter puberty now at age 7? So is it now moraly correct to marry and have sex with girls that age since the standard for that is puberty?

 

Let me know your thoughts.

This horrifies me!

You think the only reason you cant have six with kids is because they may not have reached puberty!!!!

Well fuck you, there's something called CHOICE!!

You seem to have missed my point. The bible teaches that you can marry and have sex with a girl right after she hits puberty. Im asking christians what they think since if god created morality, that morality is objective and doesnt change. Obviously such behavior was not considered immoral then so do christians consider it immoral now, and why if morality is objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Did you know that 15 percent of girls enter puberty now at age 7? So is it now moraly correct to marry and have sex with girls that age since the standard for that is puberty?

 

Let me know your thoughts.

This horrifies me!

You think the only reason you cant have six with kids is because they may not have reached puberty!!!!

Well fuck you, there's something called CHOICE!!

You seem to have missed my point. The bible teaches that you can marry and have sex with a girl right after she hits puberty. Im asking christians what they think since if god created morality, that morality is objective and doesnt change. Obviously such behavior was not considered immoral then so do christians consider it immoral now, and why if morality is objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is rather subjective and often guided by social mores and norms. This means the concept of morality is subject to significant flux. This also means a concrete and purely quantatitive definition is impossible. Even most Christians reject much of what is in the bible, particularly the Old Testament stuff while cherry picking the New Testament stuff. Why is this? I believe that most contemporary Christians also base their morality on current mores and norms. There even exists forms of Christianity tolerant and even supportive of concepts that are traditionally shunned by religions like Christianity. We see that even most Christians align their interpretation of the bible with current mores and norms and it's quite easy to tell how traditional some are by looking at recent advancement of bills and laws that focus on issues that they see as being moral. With that said, it's also quite easy to appreciate societies where dogma dominates over the ever changing mores and norms that define morality in other societies. It is also easy to appreciate the consequences of such thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When it comes to morality I use logic and critical thinking to guide me, I never go wrong.

You never go wrong? I'm not sure whether I ought to be impressed... or afraid.
Have you not heard the term "you can never go wrong"

Like your girlfriend says "should I wear the black dress or the red" and you say, you can never go wrong with the black.

 

I was not making a statment of moral perfection, I am simply saying logic and critical thinking serves me well when I make moral choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

When it comes to morality I use logic and critical thinking to guide me, I never go wrong.

You never go wrong? I'm not sure whether I ought to be impressed... or afraid.
Have you not heard the term "you can never go wrong"

Like your girlfriend says "should I wear the black dress or the red" and you say, you can never go wrong with the black.

I was not making a statment of moral perfection, I am simply saying logic and critical thinking serves me well when I make moral choices.

Fair enough. I thought I was looking at moral certainty which is dangerous in my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

When it comes to morality I use logic and critical thinking to guide me, I never go wrong.

You never go wrong? I'm not sure whether I ought to be impressed... or afraid.
Have you not heard the term "you can never go wrong"

Like your girlfriend says "should I wear the black dress or the red" and you say, you can never go wrong with the black.

I was not making a statment of moral perfection, I am simply saying logic and critical thinking serves me well when I make moral choices.

Fair enough. I thought I was looking at moral certainty which is dangerous in my experience.
Yeah well its my fault really I wrote that post and did not realize that reading the text would render it that way. Im going to edit it now for clarity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah well its my fault really I wrote that post and did not realize that reading the text would render it that way. Im going to edit it now for clarity.

 

 

Never the less you are right about how logic and critical thinking are excellent guides for making moral choices.  I would add to that that it's important to factor in uncertainty and the unknown.  Religion gets it wrong because religion assumes that it's right - the truth was revealed by the creator of the universe.  It's best to leave a margin for the unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i read "immortal" instead of "immoral" GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif  would be great.

I agree with sdelsoray.

Also "Gods objective morality" as it is stated in the bible isn't moral by todays standard (slavery and rape were tolerated) and it didn't cover recent moral problems like abortion, cloning, euthanasia or organ transplantation/blood transfusion. How can his morality be absolute if there are so many cases were believers can't decide what is moral in Gods eyes? And even God isn't consistent in his morality: "you shall not murder but you should definitely wipe out some other nations around you" Wendytwitch.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morals are not universal.  So yes, by someone's standard you're immoral for not being Christian. 

 

By my standards they're immoral for being Christian.  We're even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more moral, because now I can't just 'ask' and be forgiven. I have to actually take responsibility for my actions.

 

nuff said.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i read "immortal" instead of "immoral" GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif would be great.

I agree with sdelsoray.

Also "Gods objective morality" as it is stated in the bible isn't moral by todays standard (slavery and rape were tolerated) and it didn't cover recent moral problems like abortion, cloning, euthanasia or organ transplantation/blood transfusion. Wendytwitch.gif

Actually, abortion is mentioned in the old testament in numbers chapter 5. Guess what, god is totally okay with it. Thats just something christians chose to ignore. Imagine that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is rather subjective and often guided by social mores and norms. This means the concept of morality is subject to significant flux. This also means a concrete and purely quantatitive definition is impossible. Even most Christians reject much of what is in the bible, particularly the Old Testament stuff while cherry picking the New Testament stuff. Why is this? I believe that most contemporary Christians also base their morality on current mores and norms. There even exists forms of Christianity tolerant and even supportive of concepts that are traditionally shunned by religions like Christianity. We see that even most Christians align their interpretation of the bible with current mores and norms and it's quite easy to tell how traditional some are by looking at recent advancement of bills and laws that focus on issues that they see as being moral. With that said, it's also quite easy to appreciate societies where dogma dominates over the ever changing mores and norms that define morality in other societies. It is also easy to appreciate the consequences of such thinking.

I dont know, i was part of fundy christianity. Of course the ignore certain laws because they claim that jesus died to do complete the law. Of course Jesus never said that. They still obey the new testament but even Jesus spoke of slavery as not being immoral so i dont know how they can line up that with objective morality.

 

Of course Jesus himself was racist so to him inslaving inferior races would be okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know, i was part of fundy christianity. Of course the ignore certain laws because they claim that jesus died to do complete the law. Of course Jesus never said that. They still obey the new testament but even Jesus spoke of slavery as not being immoral so i dont know how they can line up that with objective morality.

 

Of course Jesus himself was racist so to him inslaving inferior races would be okay.

 

Well you seem to be slowly answering your own question.

 

The thing is, even if you assume that there is a God, and that it is communicating with us about morality through the bible, your own interpretation of that communication, and your own picking and choosing, is still the very definition of subjective morality. Even before the interpretation problem, the very fact that you have to make an assumption to choose which God and which lines of communication you listen to means you are making a bet based on your own rationalization and emotion. These are choices based on things that cannot be actually known, and that's exactly what "subjective morality" means. There's no two ways about it, and no amount of pretense will change that.

 

As to "how they can line that up with objective morality", or even talk about objective morality without realizing the problem of subjective interpretation, is simply because most people are not really interested of thinking about things, they want everything to be simple.

 

As of those apologists who spend serious thought trying to rationalize this, they have certainly ran into this problem, and while trying to get around it, their arguments have turned into completely childish and meaningless word play. See if you can spot what I mean;

 

From 22:20 onwards, the first few minutes of Craig's opening is enough to demonstrate my point, as he spills the beans pretty much immediately. His entire argument is, "Objective morality cannot exist if there is no God, although we can't tell if either one exists, and morality may be just a human convention, and ideas of objective morality may be just delusional". Now, all that is certainly absolutely true, because he is arguing for the existence of a tautology! "If this, then this". Objective morality is by definition something that is not dependent on human ideas, i.e, something decided by God. What he is saying is "there can be no decisions by God, if there is no God somewhere out there... but of course there's no way to know"

 

The thing is, he knows perfectly well that objective morality is fundamentally "out of reach" even if it does exist. Yet he is wasting his breath on a simple tautology that cannot possibly make any difference. It is like thinking about whether there exists other worlds that do not in any way interact with out world. They may exists, but by definition we already made it impossible to know. Why think about things like that?

 

The fact that Shelly Kagan doesn't point out this stupidity immediately is deeply concerning to me, and I would like to say a few things about religion debates in general, but maybe later...

 

Oh, and one more thing. Some religious apologists may argue that people have no reason to behave morally if they don't believe in moral code dictated by God. I would ask them to imagine a situation where they would lose their belief in God, and if they honestly think they would in that situation stop having a sense of morality, or if they would still have the exact same sense of empathy towards the people around them. I have also heard people saying that the sense of empathy is not enough to explain why do people behave morally. Those people don't even know what empathy is.

 

If you see someone, even a complete stranger, getting hurt, or feeling joy, you automatically have an understanding of how they feel. You mirror their feelings, you may feel sad because someone else feels sad, or you may feel happy because someone else feels happy. That's called empathy. Some people are more sensitive to it than the others. Some people have very weak sense of empathy, it's a medical condition called psychopathy. Something the desert people didn't know about.

 

That sense of empathy alone makes most of us want to shape the society into something where there exists justice for all of us. I don't have a shred of belief in God, yet I hate to see injustice. (Which is why I am anti-theist, but that's another story)

 

Now here's the most important bit about morality. We are trying to make the best decisions when the answers are not always clear. We are trying to not hurt people, but we don't always know what actions hurt the least.

 

Take the issue of abortion for instance. We can only base our decisions on what we know, or think we know, about the world. Continuous education is our only tool in shaping these decisions. Our collective, current scientific understanding is exactly what tells us what would be an answer to the best of our knowledge. To the best of our knowledge, there is no soul inside the embryo, it doesn't have a subjective experience and emotions. To the best of our knowledge, the mother does have a subjective experience and emotions, and she can get hurt, or even killed. That should be the basis of our educated guess.

 

To go against abortion based on belief that God has a say on the issue, is to make a bet that goes directly against our most educated guess.

 

Any time the religious answer is different from the scientific answer is like answering a probabilistic question with answers that don't correspond to the hints we actually have, under the philosophy that "well we don't know for sure anyway" and "some unknowable entity somewhere might think this way, unbeknownst to us". That is really naive philosophy. The problem with uneducated people is that they don't even know what they don't know. They have no idea about the history of the bible, and about how absurdly small the probability is, that one of the ancient pagan gods of Israel has a role in this play, and how philosophically childish it is to pretend so when such things are fundamentally unknowable. They don't seem to know that religious authorities literally voted about these things in quite recent history. Other people voted what is supposed to be taken as objective opinion of God. Good luck with that.

 

So, it's not enough to say that religion shouldn't have a monopoly on morality, it's more that religion should have absolutely no business on morality. You do not have to tolerate the instances where religious views are clearly hurting people, according to the best of our knowledge. It is sad that in the US politics "God knows best" is still quite an acceptable stance.

 

Oh and I think this is pretty good account on growing out of childish religious morality;

 

Good luck making your friends also think for themselves.

 

-Anssi

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i read "immortal" instead of "immoral" GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif would be great.

I agree with sdelsoray.

Also "Gods objective morality" as it is stated in the bible isn't moral by todays standard (slavery and rape were tolerated) and it didn't cover recent moral problems like abortion, cloning, euthanasia or organ transplantation/blood transfusion. Wendytwitch.gif

Actually, abortion is mentioned in the old testament in numbers chapter 5. Guess what, god is totally okay with it. Thats just something christians chose to ignore. Imagine that.

 

 

They either ignored it or didn't know it was in there. There's a LOT of stuff in the Bible that most Christians don't even know about, which is sort of funny. Hell, I didn't even know that was in there until after my deconversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.